Abstract
The rationality behind corporate responsibility must evolve for business to gain and retain legitimacy and to strengthen the institutional framework of global governance. Responsibility in practice as a means toward legitimacy is becoming more important for corporate actors in line with the growth of their influence in global governance and the external expectations connected to that. At the same time that the dynamics of governance and the role of business changes, the quality of governance issues has changed. With the emergence of universal and existential issues in a context of complexity and connectedness, business legitimacy faces growing scrutiny. The potential for a universal scope of responsibility for businesses due to their global influence in the context of various governance issues and with that a wide range of addressees, means that corporate actors need to meet the growing challenges of their legitimacy. This chapter suggests that a general structure for an approach that utilizes responsibility, as a means toward sustainable legitimacy, should incorporate at a minimum the three phases of critical reflection, prioritization, and collaboration. It is important to emphasize that a responsibility in practice needs to incorporate both the social and natural environment, as defined by Jonas. Additionally, it must build on prospective evaluation of expected consequences of business operations, despite apparent complexity. This chapter points toward teleological ethical considerations as opposed to established moral and legal norms to guide the approach toward consequence-based responsibility in practice and thereby sustainable business legitimacy.
References
Ainley K (2017) Virtue ethics. In: Oxford research encyclopedia of international studies. Oxford University Press and the International Studies Association, Oxford
Banzhaf G (2017) Der Begriff der Verantwortung in der Gegenwart: 20.-21. Jahrhundert. In: Heidbrink L, Langbehn C, Loh J (eds) Handbuch Verantwortung. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, pp 149–167
Barney JB (2001) Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: a ten-year retrospective on the resource-based view. J Manag 27:643–650. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630102700602
Basu K, Palazzo G (2008) Corporate social responsibility: a process model of sensemaking. Acad Manag Rev 33:122–136. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159379
Bayertz K, Beck B (2017) Der Begriff der Verantwortung in der Moderne: 19.-20. Jahrhundert. In: Heidbrink L, Langbehn C, Loh J (eds) Handbuch Verantwortung. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, pp 133–147
Beck V (2015) Verantwortung oder Pflicht? Zur Frage der Aktualität und Unterscheidbarkeit zweier philosophischer Grundbegriffe. Zeitschrift für Prakt Philos 2:165–202. https://doi.org/10.22613/zfpp/2.2.6
Benatar S, Daar A, Singer P (2003) Global health ethics: the rationale for mutual caring. Int Aff 79:107–138
Bonhoeffer D (1966) Ethik, 7th edn. Christian Kaiser Verlag, Muenchen
Brown DL, Vetterlein A, Roemer-Mahler A (2010) Theorizing transnational corporations as social actors: an analysis of corporate motivations. Bus Polit 12:1–37
Buhmann K (2010) Public–private development of CSR on the international stage: reflexivity and legitimacy. In: Rendtorff JD (ed) Power and principle in the market place on ethics and economics, 1st edn. Routledge, London, pp 179–195
Bukovansky M, Clark I, Eckersley R et al (2012) Special responsibilities: global problems and American power. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Cutler AC (1999) Locating “authority” in the global political economy. Int Stud Q 43:59–81
Erskine T (2008) Locating responsibility: the problem of moral agency in international relations. http://oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199219322.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199219322-e-41. Accessed 19 Feb 2018
Falkner R (2008) Business power and business conflict: a neo-pluralist perspective. In: Falkner R (ed) Business power and conflict in international environmental politics. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp 16–45
Freeman RE (1994) The politics of stakeholder theory. Bus Ethics Q 4:409–421
French PA (1979) The corporation as a moral person. Am Philos Q 16:207–215
French PA (1996) Integrity, intentions, and corporations. Am Bus Law J 34:141–155
Gerhardt V (2017) Individuelle Verantwortung. In: Heidbrink L, Langbehn C, Loh J (eds) Handbuch Verantwortung. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, pp 431–451
Haufler V (2001) A public role for the private sector. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, DC
Heidbrink L (2016) Companies as political actors: a positioning between ordo-responsibility and systems responsibility. In: Luetke C, Mukerji N (eds) Order ethics: an ethical framework for the social market economy. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 251–278
Heidbrink L (2017) Definitionen und Voraussetzungen der Verantwortung. In: Heidbrink L, Langbehn C, Loh J (eds) Handbuch der Verantwortung. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, pp 3–33
Heidbrink L, Langbehn C, Loh J (eds) (2017) Handbuch Verantwortung, 1st edn. Springer, Wiesbaden
Held V (1970) Can a random collection of individuals be morally responsible? J Philos 67:471–481
Humphreys D, Cashore B, Visseren-Hamakers I, DeJong W et al (2017) Towards durable multistakeholder-generated solutions: the pilot application of a problem-oriented policy learning protocol to legality verification and community rights in Peru. Int For Rev 19:278–293. https://doi.org/10.1505/146554817821865018
ICRC (2018) Nuclear weapons. https://www.icrc.org/en/document/nuclear-weapons. Accessed 5 Nov 2019
Isaacs T (2014) Collective responsibility and collective obligation. Midwest Stud Philos 38:40–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/misp.12015
Jaspers K (1957) Die Atombombe und die Zukuft des Menschen. Politisches Bewusstsein in unserer Zeit, 1st edn. Piper Verlag, Muenchen
Joas H (2011) Die Sakralität der Person – Eine neue Genealogie der Menschenrechte. Suhrkamp Verlag, Berlin
Jonas H (2017) Das Prinzip Verantwortung, 6th edn. Suhrkamp, Taschenbuch Verlag, Berlin
Kivleniece I, Quelin BV (2012) Creating and capturing value in public–private ties: a private actor’s perspective. Acad Manag Rev 37:272–299
Mecklin J (2019) A new abnormal: It is still 2 minutes to midnight 2019 Doomsday Clock Statement Science and Security Board Statement from the President and CEO. In: Bull. At. Sci. https://media.thebulletin.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/2019-Clock-Statement-Press-Print-Version.pdf. Accessed 5 Nov 2019
Miller D (1993) In defence of nationality. J Appl Philos 10:3–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5930.1993.tb00058.x
Miller S (2006) Collective moral responsibility: an individualist account. Midwest Stud Philos 30:176–193
Miller D (2007) Two concepts of responsibility. In: National responsibility and global justice. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 81–110
Mitchell RK, Agle BR, Wood DJ (1997) Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts. Acad Manag Rev 22:853–886. https://doi.org/10.2307/259247
Moon S (2013) Respecting the right to access to medicines: implications of the UN guiding principles on business and human rights for the pharmaceutical industry. Health Hum Rights 15:32–43
Moschella M, Tsingou E (2013) Regulating finance after the crisis: unveiling the different dynamics of the regulatory process. Regul Gov 7:407–416. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12032
Ougaard M, Leander A (2012) Business and Global Governance (Paperback) – Routledge, 1st edn. Routledge, London
Pava ML, Krausz J (1997) Criteria for evaluating the legitimacy of corporate social responsibility. J Bus Ethics 16:337–347. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017920217290
Pies I, Koslowski P (2011) Corporate citizenship and new governance, 1st edn. Springer, Dordrecht
Pogge T (2008) Access to medicines. Public Health Ethics 1:73–82
Porter ME, Kramer MR (2011) Creating shared value. Harv Bus Rev 89:62–77
Rendtorff JD (2009) Responsibility, ethics, and legitimacy of corporations, 1st edn. ebrary, Inc, Frederiksberg/Portland
Rendtorff JD (2014) Risk management, banality of evil and moral blindness in organizations and corporations. Bus Ethics Risk Manag 43:45–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7441-4
Schneider A, Scherer AG (2015) Corporate governance in a risk society. J Bus Ethics 126:309–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1943-4
Sethi SP (2002) Corporate codes of conduct and the success of globalization. Ethics Int Aff 16:89–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7093.2002.tb00377.x
Steigleder K (2017) Deontologische Theorien der Verantwortung. In: Heidbrink L, Langbehn C, Loh J (eds) Handbuch Verantwortung. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, pp 171–188
Suchman MC (1995) Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches. Acad Manag Rev 20:571–610
Tomaschek N, Streinzer A (2014) Verantwortung – Ueber das Handeln in einer komplexen Welt, 1st edn. Waxmann Verlag GmBH, Muenster/New York
Vetterlein A (2018) Responsibility is more than accountability: from regulatory towards negotiated governance. Contemp Polit 24:1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569775.2018.1452106
Wilhelms G (2017) Systemverantwortung. In: Heidbrink L, Langbehn C, Loh J (eds) Handbuch Verantwortung. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, pp 501–524
Young IM (2011) Responsibility for justice. Oxford University Press, New York
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this entry
Cite this entry
Delventhal, J. (2019). Legitimacy, Institutions, and Practical Responsibility. In: Rendtorff, J. (eds) Handbook of Business Legitimacy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68845-9_67-1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68845-9_67-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-68845-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-68845-9
eBook Packages: Springer Reference Religion and PhilosophyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Humanities